Author Topic: Towns (Read 976 times)

Bosco123 · « **on:** November 22, 2007, 12:12:15 PM »

Now I had an Idea that came to mind that might be put into consideration. You know how all towns are the same size, but the feilds are not. Now why not make a bigger town with more guns at bigger feilds. That way, the GV missions that take the big bases have a harder time to take it or NOE missions with 110.

What do you think?

Spikes · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2007, 01:27:32 PM »

Would be nice.

Latrobe · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2007, 02:07:52 PM »

Makes perfectly, logical sense. Nice idea

WWhiskey · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2007, 03:34:42 PM »

it'll never work it makes too much sense!

stephen · « **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:20:37 PM »

yeh but towns are hard to kill as-is with GV"s

Spikes · « **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:23:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by stephen
yeh but towns are hard to kill as-is with GV"s

Are you kidding? Step into the real world. 2 T34s can take a town down in 10 mins.

Bosco123 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:38:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by WWhiskey
it'll never work it makes too much sense!

Well im glad this makes sence.

Easyscor · « **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:47:11 PM »

It makes perfect sense right up until the moment you think about what it would do to the rest of game play. Put together a big enough horde to roll up larger towns and watch it roll up large chunks of the rest of the countryside, or your country when the shoe is on the other foot.

stephen · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2007, 03:29:21 AM »

yeh but I can take two T34's down in 5 min with a Dmodel Hurri

Bosco123 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2007, 09:58:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Easyscor
It makes perfect sense right up until the moment you think about what it would do to the rest of game play. Put together a big enough horde to roll up larger towns and watch it roll up large chunks of the rest of the countryside, or your country when the shoe is on the other foot.

But don't we have hordes now, it just trakes more cooperation, thats why we have missions most people who horde bases now are two or three guys. In this case it take 5 or 6 to try and take a base.
Its jst more cooperation, which I belive wins wars.

Tilt · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2007, 11:41:23 AM »

Always seemed more logical to me that in order to capture a base you have to render its defences useless........in the final event this would mean neutralising its infantry...........

Infantry live in "encampments" made up of rows and rows of barracks usually defended by gun implacements.

My view is that it would be more appropriate if the map room was in the middle of an encampment and it was barracks and not town buildings (or barracks and town buildings where an encampment was by a town) that were geared to the map room vulnerability.

The up side of this is that a side would have to wait for barracks to rebuild to a certain % before troops became available for an offensive from the field just taken.

Spikes · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2007, 11:43:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by stephen
yeh but I can take two T34's down in 5 min with a Dmodel Hurri

Hard to, for some people.

Bosco123 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2007, 01:12:52 PM »

We could have barracks tilt, but also have it so that I take 20 troops to take large airfeilds too and that will also stop hordes as well.

Easyscor · « **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2007, 01:23:50 PM »

What's your definition of a horde anyway?

KTM520guy · « **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2007, 02:13:24 PM »

A horde in AH speak is three or more people flying in the same general direction.